This man is a nuts

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I know that this is going to sound like redboarding, but i had my doubts from the start.

The experience they had was in war and not in diplomacy and never did any of them have anything to do with a rebuilding situation (although its been a long time since we have had to rebuild). How was Colin Powell qualified? He wasnt and it showed.

The foreign policy team was heavy in an agenda toward war and that is what we got.

You may have been right. I'm not saying that they were a great team. I'm saying that they looked like a great team to most people(myself included).

It's kind of similar to Robert Gates. Everyone is saying what a great choice he is and how qualified he is. For the most part, everyone is raving about him. He may or may not do a good job, but he certainly is not a controversial choice.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You may have been right. I'm not saying that they were a great team. I'm saying that they looked like a great team to most people(myself included).

It's kind of similar to Robert Gates. Everyone is saying what a great choice he is and how qualified he is. For the most part, everyone is raving about him. He may or may not do a good job, but he certainly is not a controversial choice.

I really dont have an issue with Gates. He is doing mop up duty right now anyway and he cant really do anything "wrong". If he screws up, he can blame it on the mess he inherited. If he does anything marginally good, he is a hero.

The most qualified member of the original team was Richard Clarke and he was ignored and then demoted.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I really dont have an issue with Gates. He is doing mop up duty right now anyway and he cant really do anything "wrong". If he screws up, he can blame it on the mess he inherited. If he does anything marginally good, he is a hero.

The most qualified member of the original team was Richard Clarke and he was ignored and then demoted.

We must not be talking about the same Richard Clarke.

http://www.brookesnews.com/042903ecclewilkinson.html

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

We must not be talking about the same Richard Clarke.

http://www.brookesnews.com/042903ecclewilkinson.html

Again, Rup, how is that link any more viable than commondreams?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Again, Rup, how is that link any more viable than commondreams?

It's not all that much different than commondreams but I think that many of their criticisms of Clarke are legitimate. They guy did lie. He totally changed his story. He totally changed his story and he was trying to sell a book. That certainly hurts his credibility.

By the way, with commondreams.com I've never said that everything they say is a flat out lie. Sure there are some lies but most of the things they say are half-truths and one-sided arguments. When you only hear half-truths and one-sided arguments, you are only getting half the story.

So with Richard Clarke, I'm not saying that the story I linked is the only truth or the whole story, but it is a point of view that some people have of Clarke. My point was that you may think Clarke is great but there are plenty of other people that think Clarke is a liar who has no credibilty at all. There are two sides to most things.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It's not all that much different than commondreams but I think that many of their criticisms of Clarke are legitimate. They guy did lie. He totally changed his story. He totally changed his story and he was trying to sell a book. That certainly hurts his credibility.

By the way, with commondreams.com I've never said that everything they say is a flat out lie. Sure there are some lies but most of the things they say are half-truths and one-sided arguments. When you only hear half-truths and one-sided arguments, you are only getting half the story.

So with Richard Clarke, I'm not saying that the story I linked is the only truth or the whole story, but it is a point of view that some people have of Clarke. My point was that you may think Clarke is great but there are plenty of other people that think Clarke is a liar who has no credibilty at all. There are two sides to most things.

The credibility of clarke comes from having served under Reagan, HW Bush and Clinton. Those guys seemed to think he had credibility. For some reason, it didnt pan out with this guy when it worked with those guys. I wonder why.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by merasmag

reading these links, it is beneath me, totally...to say the washington post is mainstream is the funniest thing i read all day and i've been reading this site for almost 2 hours today...and i can't get into the commondreams stuff either, while closer to my politics, too poorly written and slanted to mean anything to anyone

Wow....I didn't think anything was beneath a liberal! No,wait...that didn't come out quite right!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by merasmag

reading these links, it is beneath me, totally...to say the washington post is mainstream is the funniest thing i read all day and i've been reading this site for almost 2 hours today...and i can't get into the commondreams stuff either, while closer to my politics, too poorly written and slanted to mean anything to anyone

The Washington Post has always been a liberal newspaper. It is certainly left of center, but it is mainstream compared to many of the sites that we link to on this board.